EA Sues Zynga For Copying Sims Game

Social game developer Zynga has been on the receiving end of complaints in the past for releasing games that look a bit too much like games from indie developers, and for other shady business practices. Now, they've run afoul of somebody with sharper teeth. Today Electronic Arts and Maxis filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Zynga claiming that The Ville is "blatant mimicry" of The Sims Social. "'This is a case of principle,' says EA Maxis general manager Lucy Bradshaw. 'Maxis isn't the first studio to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it. Infringing a developer's copyright is not an acceptable practice in game development.' In its complaint, EA argues that Zynga willfully and intentionally copied ideas from The Sims Social, the Facebook edition of the EA/Maxis franchise that released in August 2011. When Zynga released The Ville last June, consumers and the press immediately pointed out that the title resembled The Sims more than a little."

Comments

Rules

[Hatta]

Since when could you copyright game rules?

Re:Rules

[thegarbz]

Erm they didn't just copy the rules. They blatantly ripped off the interface design and artwork too. Go have a look at their various titles. It's not simply a case of copying the concept or the engine. It's basically trying to make a very close clone artwork and all. The Tetris ruling should make it quite clear that they are in violation, and also that the rules aren't the copyrightable bit.

I hate EA and the copyright laws as much as the next person. But I hate Zynga more and I really hope they get their asses kicked for this.

Re:Rules

[Hatta]

What exactly did they sue over? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an authorâ(TM)s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

It seems to me a reimplementation of the same game should be legal. Change the words, art, and music, and you're good to go.

Re:Rules

[Internetuser1248]

I don't see why you'd hate Zynga more than copyright law. Don't play Zynga games and they don't affect you. You can't opt out of copyright law.

This is the thing, as an indy game developer myself I find it hard to decide which I hate more. I can imagine the anger I would feel if I had a popular game and it was ripped off and all my customers stolen by assholes like zynga who never contributed anything to the gaming world in their life.
On the other hand if zynga loses this case it might set a dangerous precedent. My own work is generally inspired by something else, all artists plagiarise to some degree. It is clear to people who appreciate good games who is bringing new innovation to an old abandoned idea, and who is ripping off other people's ip to milk profit from it. But codifying that in law is not an easy task. The ideal outcome in my opinion is that EA and zynga both put each other out of business with massive legal costs, and then all simultaneously drop dead from heart attacks. I guess the ideal realistic outcome is that zynga wins the court case but the bad publicity damages their reputation to such a degree that they gradually fade away. I know that is also not very realistic, people who like zynga games are not usually smart enough to understand a complex issue like this.

Re:Rules

[ArhcAngel]

Why hate Zynga. They wrote their own code, didn't they? Is the artwork a pixel-for-pixel copy, or a stylistic imitation?

Two words...Mark Pincus

Re:Rules

[docmordin]

If they remade the assets and did not copy directly the files it's not copyright infringement in international law. Same thing with game mechanics. If Zynga did not copy/paste the code or texts from EA them there's no ground in international copyright law.

There is plenty of legal precedence in US law, which pertains as the case is being argued in US, that contradicts some of your statements:

Midway Mfg. Co., v. Dirkschneider et al. 543 F. Supp 466 (D. Neb. 1981)
Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Elcon Industries, 564 F.Supp. 937 (E.D. Mich. 1982)
Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 999 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 1983)
Team Play, Inc. v. Boyer, 391 F.Supp.2d 695 (N.D. Ill. 2005)
William L Crawford II et al. v. Midway Games, Inc. et al. (W.D. Cal. 2007)
Capcom Co., Ltd. et. al. v. The MKR Group (N.D. Cal. 2008)

To elaborate a bit from those above cases, let alone others, to establish infringement a plaintiff must prove ownership of a valid copyright and "copying" by the defendant. Because direct evidence of copying often is unavailable, copying may be inferred where the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and the accused work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work (Warner Brothers, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 654 F.2d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 1981)).

Some courts have expressed the test of substantial similarity in two parts: (1) whether the defendant copied from the plaintiff's work and (2) whether the copying, if proven, went so far as to constitute an improper appropriation (Scott v. WKJG, Inc., 376 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 832, 88 S.Ct. 101, 19 L.Ed.2d 91 (1967)); Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 468 (2d Cir. 1946); cf. Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 1977) (extrinsic-intrinsic test)). In many cases, the courts focus on the second part of that test and the response of the "ordinary observer" (Ideal Toy Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd. (Inc.), 360 F.2d 1021, 1023 n.2 (2d Cir. 1966)). Specifically, the test is whether the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff's work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's protectible expression by taking material of substance and value (Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1164). Judge Learned Hand, in finding infringement, once stated that "the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same" (Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960)). It has been said that this test does not involve "analytic dissection and expert testimony," Arnstein, 154 F.2d at 468, but depends on whether the accused work has captured the "total concept and feel" of the copyrighted work (Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1970)).

While dissection is generally disfavored, the ordinary observer test, in application, must take into account that the copyright laws preclude appropriation of only those elements of the work that are protected by the copyright (Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 913 (2d Cir. 1980); Clarke v. G. A. Kayser & Sons, Inc., 472 F.Supp. 481, 482 (W.D.Pa.1979), aff'd without op., 631 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1980)). "It is an axiom of copyright law that the protection granted to a copyrightable work extends only to the particular expression of an idea and never to the idea itself" (Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 90 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980, 97 S.Ct. 492, 50 L.Ed.2d 588 (1976)). "Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea-not the idea itself" (Mazer v. St

Re:Rules

[hairyfeet]

Bah! You want to show they are evil you pet the kitty. Haven't you ever played Evil genius?

Lets face it folks, Zynga has been royally buttfucking indie games devs for a loooong while now, and it looks like its time they got screwed back. Zynga doesn't just borrow ideas, they make the most blatant rips they can, copying the characters, icons, I mean we don't allow this in other media as far as i know, you can't take the movie almost word for word and just change the name to "Florist Frump" so why should you be allowed to do that to a game? Hell even the "Mockbusters" only make a sound alike title while changing the characters and situations enough its not the same movie!

Now don't get me wrong, i think most copyrights ARE bullshit, and there are certain situations where you just can't help it. For example if a game has marines in it? Well everyone knows what marines look like so if you have those characters in your game they are gonna look like just about every other marine in a game because you are basing it on a real life subject. But with these games they aren't just ripping off the gameplay, they are ripping off the characters, the artwork, hell I've seen ROM hacks that are less off a ripoff of the source material than a Zynga game!

If Zynga wins i could see this seriously hurting indie devs, because who in the hell is gonna want to buy your new iPhone game if the next week Zynga or some other social group has spammed out a copy from the cheap Chinese coder factory? Why should i pay for "Plants VS Zombies" when i can play "Flowers against the undead" for free and it looks and plays the same? Why should I pay for Angry Birds when I can play "ticked off turkeys" for free and side by side shots can't tell the difference between the two?

Ultimately this doesn't hurt the big guys, who can spam the networks and radio with ads and get people to buy, it hurts the little guys who hope to get enough from their little game to keep their doors open and make the next one, because it is those guys that Zynga has been ripping off hard. The only difference between then and now is Zynga got ballsy and decided to steal from someone that can fight back.

Re:Rules

[makomk]

If you'll recall NimbleBit's whine (http://is.gd/rJwkR7 ), to Zynga about Tiny Tower vs Dream Heights? The response (http://i.imgur.com/ajaYt.jpg ) was to show how NimbleBit had seemingly copied Corporation Inc, which looks itself to be a rip-off Sim Tower, and so on.

Except that Dream Heights is clearly a copy of Tiny Tower in ways that Tiny Tower isn't a copy of Corporation Inc. The building in Corporation Inc is a very different shape, the kinds of things you can put in the building are different, the user interface layout is very different, the goals of the game and scoring mechanics are completely different... All those things and more are basically identical between Dream Heights and Tiny Tower - really, just compare the original Nimblebit comparison with the one you linked above. As Tiny Tower and Corporation Inc demonstrate, there are many possible ways to create a game that involves building a towering empire of some kind from the ground up, you really don't have to copy your competitors.

Similarly, if you read EA's complaint which was linked further up, what they're actually suing over isn't the fact that Zynga launched another game which allowed you to create a character based on yourself and have them socialize with your friends' characters, it's that Zynga copied every last detail right down to the height of the walls and the RGB values of the skin tone options.

Only the start

[T Murphy]

I, for one, hope that EA doesn't stop at Zynga in its pursuit of game publishers that lazily copy EA's games, instead of coming up with new ideas. That's right, I'm looking at you, EA, you better watch out as EA is coming after you next!

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[thegarbz]

They're not in trouble for copying the idea. They are mainly in trouble for copying the expression of that idea. I.e. the games look identical. The artwork is similar, the character graphics are similar, everything about the game is designed to be as close as possible to the original. At least their tiny tower game looked very different graphically to the original, however this one almost looks identical to the original. This is indeed copyrightable according to the Tetris ruling.

Re:Prior Art

[Jahava]

EA can't claim to be the originator of online People/Life Simulations because of these programs released in the mid-80s (on Commodore 64):

home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Computer_People Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_(video_game) Sequel: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=habitat+club+caribe

You sneaky jerk! Now I can no longer honestly say I've never used Bing.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[amicusNYCL]

Tolkien's writing of the Lord of the Rings does not prevent anyone else from writing fantasy with orcs and goblins themselves.

That's broadly true, but can I write and publish a story about a group of 4 little people, called Hobbins, who team up with people called Argon and Gendelf on a quest to destroy a magic ring sought after by the evil Sarone? They go to Riverdale and meet up with Borowmor (from Gander), Gelmi, and the elf Lagelos, go through the mines of Moira, travel through Fangrow Forest, meet the riders of Rahon, etc? Can I call that my own work and publish it? I haven't played either game, but have you seen the screenshots? A lot more than "the idea" was copied, specific implementation details were copied (such as personality types with different names, character animations, etc). The creativity that Zynga put in was what I did, thinking up new descriptions for the same exact things.

To hell with them both

[TheSpoom]

Can we declare that they both lose and remove both their apps? They're not games, they're psychological tricks to extract credit card numbers.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[dzfoo]

Your story sounds vaguely familiar... Are there also Nizguls and Ring Wreaths, and a damned creature called Goellum? Because I think I've read it!

Quoth Mark Pincus, CEO, Zynga

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"I don't fucking want innovation," the ex-employee recalls Pincus saying. "You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers."

Re:Prior Art

[Dunbal]

It's only a sin if you consented to it. Just delete your cache and do 5 backups of your hard drive and you'll be absolved.

This is NOT about "copyrighting ideas"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about copying the art and the exact interface of the game. Take a brief look at the complaint to see lots of comparison pictures.

For example, SimsSocial has 8 possible skin tones for characters, and Zynga copied them down to the exact RGB values (!!). Items such as refrigerators, TVs, etc. are so similar that their outlines match up almost completely when they're overlaid on top of each other. I hate EA as much as the next Slashdotter, but this is pretty compelling stuff.

Re:Prior Art

[flimflammer]

It's not the same thing at all. EA is suing not because of the game idea of a life simulator itself but that the look, feel, and function of the game is virtually identical to their own. The art assets are almost indistinguishable. The characters have basically the same animations, some of the characters look nearly identical, the same colors for things like skin tones (down to exact RGB values), and the list goes on. It's probably Zynga's most blatantly copied game to date. A life simulator can still work if it doesn't look and work identically to EA's game. It would be like rewriting Lord of the Rings, but replacing the names of the main characters and keeping 95% of the story intact. It's like Tetris clones which has been tested in court as copyright infringement even if the graphics aren't identical.

I do think EA has a case but I don't know what they'll really be able to get out of it. Zynga may have gone too far this time. We'll know seen enough.

Tracing

[tepples]

as long as they are writing their own implementation including creating their own artwork, they are legally entitled to do so

Based on the screenshots I saw in the legal filing, Zynga didn't create its own artwork from scratch as much as trace that of EA and other developers.